4 ms·

So again, you don't care about substance, only presentation. Got it. I am the opposite, however, I don't get a voice because while I probably have 1000 lifetime

So again, you don't care about substance, only presentation. Got it. I am the opposite, however, I don't get a voice because while I probably have 1000 lifetime upvotes I have about 650 downvotes. But that makes it look like only half the time I'm right when in reality there's a decent number of people like you who discredit my online reputation because of my personal nature. In my work culture, things that upset you wouldn't even have registered so it's frustrating that I have to conform to Joe Smiths idea of proper while he prevents the mob rule from turning on him through downvoting heretical thoughts all-the-while having nothing to do with the core principles of what this website is for.

eropple 9y ago
I care quite a lot about substance. I care also about politeness. I care about treating people with compassion and decency. It is very possible to care both about an argument and the people both making and receiving that argument. And, frankly? It is telling that you would refer to politeness derogatorily as presentation. But I understand that--and because I have been in your shoes before I grew up a tiny bit, I will call you on this--you think it lets you minimize your bad behavior. So I will decline to let you off the hook without emphasizing: your behavior is pretty bad right now. It's not about "heretical thoughts." This is just and solely about you being a jerk. You're whining about people trying to shut down your Grand Ideas or whatever...when it's really just that nobody wants to listen to a jerk. So I downvoted you in this thread (though obviously I can't downvote the post to which I am replying), and will continue to do so if I happen to read your post and go "man, what a jerk he's being!". But to put a preemptive pin in the balloon, it's not because of you, I will probably forget your handle after this conversation--it's because I try to always downvote people who are being jerks! It's too bad, because you don't sound stupid and (having taken a look) some of your post history seems interesting; I'm sure that you have some generally cool things you could be saying. But you also sound like a lot of your identity is tied up in being a jerk. That's your choice, but it doesn't tend to play well around here. The good news? There's a reason that I said "being a jerk", not "are a jerk"; being a jerk is a choice and you can stop being a jerk at any time. I recommend it.
- blackflame7000 9y ago
  Here is what I don't understand. I can write the same comment to two people and one will call me a jerk and the other praise me. So what am I? A Jerk or Righteous? From the words I wrote, barring vocal tones for context, you determined I was a jerk. You never considered things might have been lost in translation and jumped straight to judgment. But the worst part is that because I didn't live up to your standard, a standard you judged from a few words, you claim the moral high ground and lecture me. Just because you value something doesn't mean others do as well, nor does it mean its wrong to disagree because there is no shortage of diversity of thoughts on this planet, and morality is relative. However, even after all this you still haven't got to my main point. That the 500 point barrier creates an unfair advantage for you over me. That's good for you but is that good for the promotion of the best ideas, even ones you might not agree with that turn out to be right? I mean we are all wrong sometimes. But I think it's the fact that you have that power and I don't that gives you the arrogance to son me.
  - eropple 9y ago
    > You never considered things might have been lost in translation I did. Lots of people here are ESL, and there is that persistent strain of tone-deafness you can see from ESL folks. (Many learn better; some hide behind it.) Then I went and looked at your posting history, because I am invested in this place and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I determined, for myself, that your behavior did not merit it. But that you also weren't dumb. Which is why I responded to your post in the first place--like I said, I've been that righteous, raging internet prick, too, and it basically only hurt myself. So you could call it my good deed for the day. Right now you are, however, making me play "dumb or dishonest?"; you keep (and my inclination is to "dishonestly", if I'm being frank) conflating your opinions with your behavior, as if that I am saying you are being a jerk because I disagree with you, rather than because I think you are being a jerk. The deeper you huddle in your excuses, the harder it is to find the fortitude to own your behavior, to walk it back, and to stop. --- I didn't realize that the Unfairness of the Situation was your "main point"; it mostly seemed that I Am A Misunderstood Genius Who Everyone Is Keeping Down was your main point. But sure, I guess it's unfair that I've invested more time in the community and surpassed a (fairly low; I've had a few comments reach the 80-100 point range and you often see 500+-point submissions!) barrier that mostly serves to keep voting rings from downvote-bombing stuff. Maybe if you didn't needlessly antagonize people in so many comments, you would too surmount it? I also didn't realize "you're being a jerk and should stop" was so arrogant, but...well. I was honest with you, and I gave you some pretty constructive criticism about how to not be so upset by being downvoted (namely, just...don't be a jerk!). You've chosen not to listen to that criticism and instead try to legislate about how wrong it is. I think you're probably messing up by doing so; frankly, the lessons I learned from reforming my own online behavior made me a much better person to be around offline, too, which is a nontrivial part of why I said anything in the first place because seeing people piss down their own legs makes me a little uncomfortable. I don't intend to respond to you further now, though, as you have proven that assuming good faith of you is a waste of time.

eropple 9y ago

I care quite a lot about substance. I care also about politeness. I care about treating people with compassion and decency. It is very possible to care both about an argument and the people both making and receiving that argument. And, frankly? It is telling that you would refer to politeness derogatorily as presentation. But I understand that--and because I have been in your shoes before I grew up a tiny bit, I will call you on this--you think it lets you minimize your bad behavior. So I will decline to let you off the hook without emphasizing: your behavior is pretty bad right now. It's not about "heretical thoughts." This is just and solely about you being a jerk. You're whining about people trying to shut down your Grand Ideas or whatever...when it's really just that nobody wants to listen to a jerk. So I downvoted you in this thread (though obviously I can't downvote the post to which I am replying), and will continue to do so if I happen to read your post and go "man, what a jerk he's being!". But to put a preemptive pin in the balloon, it's not because of you, I will probably forget your handle after this conversation--it's because I try to always downvote people who are being jerks! It's too bad, because you don't sound stupid and (having taken a look) some of your post history seems interesting; I'm sure that you have some generally cool things you could be saying. But you also sound like a lot of your identity is tied up in being a jerk. That's your choice, but it doesn't tend to play well around here. The good news? There's a reason that I said "being a jerk", not "are a jerk"; being a jerk is a choice and you can stop being a jerk at any time. I recommend it.

blackflame7000 9y ago
Here is what I don't understand. I can write the same comment to two people and one will call me a jerk and the other praise me. So what am I? A Jerk or Righteous? From the words I wrote, barring vocal tones for context, you determined I was a jerk. You never considered things might have been lost in translation and jumped straight to judgment. But the worst part is that because I didn't live up to your standard, a standard you judged from a few words, you claim the moral high ground and lecture me. Just because you value something doesn't mean others do as well, nor does it mean its wrong to disagree because there is no shortage of diversity of thoughts on this planet, and morality is relative. However, even after all this you still haven't got to my main point. That the 500 point barrier creates an unfair advantage for you over me. That's good for you but is that good for the promotion of the best ideas, even ones you might not agree with that turn out to be right? I mean we are all wrong sometimes. But I think it's the fact that you have that power and I don't that gives you the arrogance to son me.
- eropple 9y ago
  > You never considered things might have been lost in translation I did. Lots of people here are ESL, and there is that persistent strain of tone-deafness you can see from ESL folks. (Many learn better; some hide behind it.) Then I went and looked at your posting history, because I am invested in this place and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I determined, for myself, that your behavior did not merit it. But that you also weren't dumb. Which is why I responded to your post in the first place--like I said, I've been that righteous, raging internet prick, too, and it basically only hurt myself. So you could call it my good deed for the day. Right now you are, however, making me play "dumb or dishonest?"; you keep (and my inclination is to "dishonestly", if I'm being frank) conflating your opinions with your behavior, as if that I am saying you are being a jerk because I disagree with you, rather than because I think you are being a jerk. The deeper you huddle in your excuses, the harder it is to find the fortitude to own your behavior, to walk it back, and to stop. --- I didn't realize that the Unfairness of the Situation was your "main point"; it mostly seemed that I Am A Misunderstood Genius Who Everyone Is Keeping Down was your main point. But sure, I guess it's unfair that I've invested more time in the community and surpassed a (fairly low; I've had a few comments reach the 80-100 point range and you often see 500+-point submissions!) barrier that mostly serves to keep voting rings from downvote-bombing stuff. Maybe if you didn't needlessly antagonize people in so many comments, you would too surmount it? I also didn't realize "you're being a jerk and should stop" was so arrogant, but...well. I was honest with you, and I gave you some pretty constructive criticism about how to not be so upset by being downvoted (namely, just...don't be a jerk!). You've chosen not to listen to that criticism and instead try to legislate about how wrong it is. I think you're probably messing up by doing so; frankly, the lessons I learned from reforming my own online behavior made me a much better person to be around offline, too, which is a nontrivial part of why I said anything in the first place because seeing people piss down their own legs makes me a little uncomfortable. I don't intend to respond to you further now, though, as you have proven that assuming good faith of you is a waste of time.